RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th December, 1986, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bundi, in Sessions Case No. 136/1986, where by he convicted the appellant under Section 304 -11, I.P.C. and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The learned Sessions Judge refused to grant benefit of probation under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, and Section 360, Cr. P.C. As a consequence where of the accused -appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act (in short as Act).

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The appellant was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Bundi for the offence under Section 304 -11, I.P.C., against which an appeal was preferred to this Court. This Court vide its judgment dated 22nd January, 1986, dismissed the appeal of the appellant and maintained the conviction under Section 304 -II, I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred a special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order observed as follows: While maintaining the conviction of the appellant we set aside the sentence imposed on the appellant and we direct the trial Court to consider whether the appellant is entitled to the, benefit of Section 360 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or to the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. If the trial Court on a consideration of the entire matter comes to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of either of the two provisions, it shall extend the benefit of those provisions to him. If the trial court finds that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the above provisions, the sentence now imposed by the High Court shall revive and the appellant shall under go the sentence. The trial Court shall dispose of this case within eight weeks from the date it receives the copy of this order. The parties are at liberty to adduce evidence on the question of the age and on all relevant matters. In the meanwhile, the appellant shall continue to remain in custody.

(3.) I have heard Shri S.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.